February 2017 - council - lists.icann.org

Proposed Final Agenda GNSO Council Meeting 16 February at 12:00 UTC
by Nathalie Peregrine Feb. 8, 2017

Feb. 8, 2017

Dear councilors, Please find the Proposed Final Agenda for the GNSO Council Meeting on 16 February at 12:00 UTC. Date and link for item 8 will be added when available. PROPOSED FINAL AGENDA FOR GNSO COUNCIL MEETING 16 February 2017 Please note that all documents referenced in the agenda have been gathered on a Wiki page for convenience and easier access: https://community.icann.org/x/Oo7RAw This agenda was established according to the GNSO Operating Procedures<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_coun…> v3.2, updated on 01 September 2016. For convenience: * An excerpt of the ICANN Bylaws defining the voting thresholds is provided in Appendix 1 at the end of this agenda. * An excerpt from the Council Operating Procedures defining the absentee voting procedures is provided in Appendix 2 at the end of this agenda. Coordinated Universal Time: 12:00 UTC http://tinyurl.com/gpnsgbw 04:00 Los Angeles; 07:00 Washington; 12:00 London; 15:00 Istanbul; 23:00 Hobart GNSO Council Meeting Audio Cast To join the event click on the link: http://stream.icann.org:8000/gnso.m3u Councilors should notify the GNSO Secretariat in advance if they will not be able to attend and/or need a dial out call. ___________________________________ Item 1. Administrative Matters (5 mins) 1.1 - Roll Call 1.2 - Updates to Statements of Interest 1.3 - Review / Amend Agenda 1.4 - Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meetings per the GNSO Operating Procedures: Minutes of the meeting of the GNSO Council on 15 December 2016, posted on 4 January 2017. Minutes of the meeting of the GNSO Council on 19 January 2017, posted on XXXXXXXXX. Item 2. Opening Remarks / Review of Projects & Action List (10 mins) 2.1 - Review focus areas and provide updates on specific key themes / topics, to include review of Projects List <https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/project> and Action Item List<https://community.icann.org/x/RgZlAg> Item 3. Consent Agenda (5 mins) 3.1 – Confirmation of Continuation of James Bladel’s (GNSO Chair) Term as Interim GNSO Representative to the Empowered Community (EC) Administration On 29 September 2016, the GNSO Council passed a resolution (https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20160929-2) appointing the GNSO Chair (currently James Bladel) as the GNSO’s representative to the EC Administration on an interim basis. The Council resolution had contemplated that the GNSO would finalize its decision as to its appointment of the person designated to represent the GNSO on the EC Administration within three months of the completion of the work of the GNSO Rights & Obligations under Revised ICANN Bylaws Drafting Team (DT) and adoption of its recommendations by the GNSO Council. The DT’s Final Report was accepted by the GNSO Council on 1 December 2016 (https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20161201-1) and work is currently underway on drafting proposed necessary modifications or additions to the GNSO Operating Procedures and, if applicable, any ICANN Bylaws pertaining to the GNSO. Here the Council is expected to confirm that its appointment of the GNSO Chair as interim GNSO representative to the EC Administration is intended to remain in effect until the necessary modifications or additions to the GNSO Operating Procedures and ICANN Bylaws are completed. Item 4. COUNCIL VOTE – Approval of Final Report from the WHOIS Conflict with National Laws Procedure Implementation Advisory Group (20 minutes) The GNSO’s 2005 Policy on WHOIS Conflicts with National Laws (http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/whois-privacy/council-rpt-18jan06.htm) had recommended the creation of a Procedure to address conflicts between a contracted party's WHOIS obligations and local/national privacy laws or regulations. Under the existing Procedure (dating from January 2008), a contracted party that credibly demonstrates that it is legally prevented from complying with its WHOIS obligations can invoke the Procedure, which defines a credible demonstration as one in which the contracted party has received "notification of an investigation, litigation, regulatory proceeding or other government or civil action that might affect its compliance." The Procedure has never been invoked. In May 2014, ICANN launched a review of the Procedure. An Implementation Advisory Group (IAG) was formed and began its work in January 2015. The IAG’s Initial Report was published for public comment in November 2015. On 25 May 2016, the IAG’s Final Report, together with Appendices and a summary memo (https://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg18700.html) was delivered to the GNSO Council. The IAG Final Report proposes modifying the Procedure to allow for an additional trigger where a party has obtained, and submitted to ICANN, a written statement from the government agency charged with enforcing its data privacy laws indicating that a particular WHOIS obligation is in conflict with its national law. The Council received an update on the proposed modification at ICANN56 and discussed the matter further at its meetings on 21 July 2016 and 24 August 2016. Following additional discussions among a small group of Council volunteers, a revised motion was developed and circulated to the Council on 6 February 2017 (https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2017-February/019731.html) Here the Council will discuss and vote on the revised motion, on whether the proposed IAG modification to the Procedure conforms to the intent of the original GNSO Policy, a request that ICANN staff review the feasibility of the proposed additional trigger, and a proposal that the next periodic review of the Procedure commence no later than 31 May 2017. 4.1 – Presentation of the motion (https://community.icann.org/x/PI7RAw) (James Bladel) 4.2 – Council discussion 4.3 – Council vote (voting threshold: simple majority) Item 5. COUNCIL DISCUSSION – Proposal to Limit the Scope of the Upcoming Third Accountability and Transparency Review (15 minutes) On 2 December 2016, the co-chairs of the Cross Community Working Group for Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) had proposed to the community that the forthcoming third review of ICANN’s mechanisms for ensuring accountability and transparency (ATRT-3) be limited in scope to assessing the implementation of the recommendations from the second accountability and transparency review (ATRT-2) (https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2016-December/019581.html) The CCWG-Accountability co-chairs’ proposal was based on the acknowledgement that, without such a limitation, there is likely to be significant overlap between the work of the CCWG-Acccountability’s Work Stream 2 (WS2) and ATRT-3, since 6 of the 9 WS2 topics concern issues of accountability and transparency. On 25 January 2017, the CCWG-Accountability co-chairs sent a second request for input on its proposal from all ICANN Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees, having received no comments following its initial December request and noting that the call for volunteers for ATRT-3 was due to be published by the end of January (https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2017-January/019715.html) Here the Council will discuss whether or not the GNSO Council and community have any concerns over or objections to the CCWG-Accountability proposal. 5.1 – Summary and update (Council Chairs) 5.2 – Council discussion 5.3 – Next steps Item 6. COUNCIL DISCUSSION – Proposed Charter for a GNSO Standing Selection Committee for Selection of GNSO Representatives/Nominees to Future Review Teams and Other ICANN Structures (20 minutes) On 13 December 2016, Councilors Susan Kawaguchi and Ed Morris circulated for the Council’s consideration a draft document proposing a set of criteria and a uniform process for the selection of GNSO representatives to future Review Teams, including for the various reviews mandated by the ICANN Bylaws, and other ICANN structures for which the GNSO will need to appoint, nominate or endorse candidates (https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/gnso-appointments-procedure-13dec16-en.pdf) Following further work on the draft document by Susan, Ed and the Council leadership, a proposed Charter to create a GNSO Standing Selection Committee that will conduct future selections based on agreed, uniform criteria and a documented process was circulated to the Council on 6 February 2017 (https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/standing-committee-charter-redlined-07feb1…) Here the Council will discuss the draft Charter, with a view toward adopting a final version at its next meeting, in March 2017. 6.1 – Presentation of the Charter scope (Susan Kawaguchi & Ed Morris) 6.2 – Council discussion 6.3 – Next steps Item 7: COUNCIL DISCUSSION – Selection of GNSO Nominees for the Second Registration Directory Service (formerly WHOIS) Review Team (10 minutes) The ICANN Bylaws mandate a periodic review to assess the effectiveness of the then-current gTLD registry directory service and whether its implementation meets the legitimate needs of law enforcement, promoting consumer trust and safeguarding registrant data. A call for volunteers for the second such Registration Directory Service (RDS) Review (formerly a WHOIS Review) was first published on 28 October 2016, and the deadline for applications was subsequently extended to 20 January 2017 (https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2017-01-11-en) All ICANN Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees (SO/AC) are now expected to select their primary and (if appropriate) alternate candidates for the RDS Review Team, according to their own internal processes, from the list of applications received (https://community.icann.org/x/gYfDAw) Under the Bylaws, each SO/AC may select up to 3 primary nominees who will each automatically have a place on the RDS Review Team, and may also nominate a further 4 candidates for consideration for inclusion by the full SO/AC leadership team should there be additional places available on the Review Team due to one or more SO/AC not having selected its full slate of 3 primary nominees. Here the Council will discuss its timeline and expected selection process (including possible use of the proposed GNSO Standing Selection Committee) for the final list of GNSO nominees to the second RDS Review Team. 7.1 – Status update (GNSO Council Chairs) 7.2 – Council discussion 7.3 – Next steps Item 8: COUNCIL DISCUSSION – Preparation for Joint Meetings at ICANN58 (15 minutes) As has been customary, the GNSO will be meeting with the ICANN Board, the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) and, for the GNSO Council, also the ccNSO Council at the upcoming ICANN58 meeting in Copenhagen. A list of the topics that had either been discussed at the last ICANN meeting (in Hyderabad in November 2016) or that had already been suggested for Copenhagen was circulated to the Council on [INSERT DATE and LINK]. Here the Council will review and agree on the topics it wishes to discuss with the Board, GAC and ccNSO Council, with a view toward transmitting the lists of topics to these bodies in good time to allow for preparation for and discussion at ICANN58. 8.1 – Status update (GNSO Council chairs) 8.2 – Council discussion 8.3 – Next steps Item 9: COUNCIL DISCUSSION – Proposed Council Response to Letter from Thick WHOIS Implementation Review Team (10 minutes) On 15 December 2016, the Thick WHOIS Implementation Review Team (IRT) sent a letter to the GNSO Council describing a number of privacy law developments and how the IRT has considered them (see https://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/irt-to-gnso-council-15dec16-en.pdf) The letter noted that the IRT’s implementation plan has been published for public comment (see https://www.icann.org/public-comments/proposed-implementation-gnso-thick-rd…) and that the IRT does not currently expect the developments in question to affect the timeline for transition to thick WHOIS. The Council discussed the letter at its last meeting on 19 January 2017, at which Councilors Erika Mann and Michele Neylon volunteered to draft a possible response to the IRT from the Council for Council consideration. A draft was circulated to the Council mailing list by Erika on 2 February, which includes a request for an update on the legal review that had been done previously (https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/request-review-thick-whois-irt-03feb17-en.…) Here the Council will discuss the draft response, with a view toward deciding on its further actions on this topic. 9.1 – Summary of the draft response (Erika Mann) 9.2 – Council discussion 9.3 – Next steps Item 10: COUNCIL DISCUSSION – Finalizing the GNSO Meeting Schedule for ICANN58 (5 minutes) Based on Council discussions at its last few meetings following ICANN57 and the draft overall ICANN block meeting schedule for ICANN58 (https://meetings.icann.org/sites/default/files/icann58_blocksched_jan17.pdf) ICANN staff updated the draft GNSO Block Schedule that had been circulated previously, to include specific slots for face-to-face meetings of GNSO Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Groups, and specific topics for discussion at the various GNSO sessions. The updated draft GNSO Block Schedule (https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/drafts) was circulated on [INSERT DATE]. Here the Council will review the updated draft GNSO Block Schedule, and confirm the topics and timings for the GNSO’s sessions at ICANN58. 10.1 – Scheduling update (GNSO Council leadership / ICANN staff) 10.2 – Council discussion 10.3 – Next steps Item 11: ANY OTHER BUSINESS (5 minutes) 11.1 – Update on drafting work on new or modified GNSO Bylaws & Operating Procedures ________________________________ Appendix 1: GNSO Council Voting Thresholds (ICANN Bylaws, Article 11, Section 11.3(i)) See https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en/#article11. Appendix 2: GNSO Council Absentee Voting Procedures (GNSO Operating Procedures, Section 4.4) See https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-01sep16-en.pdf. References for Coordinated Universal Time of 12:00 UTC Local time between October and March Winter in the NORTHERN hemisphere ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- California, USA (PST) UTC-8 +0DST 04:00 San José, Costa Rica UTC-6 +0DST 06:00 Iowa City, USA (CST) UTC-6 +0DST 06:00 New York/Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-5 +0DST 07:00 Buenos Aires, Argentina (ART) UTC-3+0DST 09:00 Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (BRST) UTC-2 +0DST 10:00 London, United Kingdom (GMT) UTC+0DST 12:00 Bonn, Germany (CET) UTC+1+0DST 13:00 Cairo, Egypt, (EET) UTC+2 +0DST 14:00 Istanbul, Turkey (TRT) UTC+3+0DST 15:00 Singapore (SGT) UTC +8 +0DST 20:00 Tokyo, Japan (JST) UTC+9+0DST 21:00 Sydney/Hobart, Australia (AEDT) UTC+11+0DST 23:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- DST starts/ends on last Sunday of March 2017, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com<http://www.timeanddate.com/> and http://tinyurl.com/zocj4py Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you very much Kind regards, Nathalie -- Nathalie Peregrine Specialist, SOAC Support (GNSO) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: nathalie.peregrine(a)icann.org <nathalie.peregrine(a)icann.org%20> Skype: nathalie.peregrine.icann Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<learn.icann.org/courses/gnso> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gn…>

1 0

Board resolutions relating to GNSO topics, from the Board meeting last week
by Mary Wong Feb. 8, 2017

Feb. 8, 2017

Dear Councilors, In case you have not seen it, the Board passed the following resolutions that relate to the GNSO at its meeting last week (3 February 2017): On the GNSO Review: · The Board accepted the Implementation Plan that was approved by the GNSO Council in December 2016 and thanks the GNSO Review Working Group for its work; you may wish to note that the Board also specifically “directs the Review Working Group to provide updates to the OEC every six months”, and further resolved that “any budgetary implications of the GNSO review implementation shall be considered as part of the then-applicable annual budgeting processes”. For the full resolution and rationale (which notes that there are no budgetary impacts expected from Phase 1 of the implementation), see https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2017-02-03-en#1.e On the Council’s request relating to IRTP-C: · The Board confirmed its previous “instruction to the ICANN President and CEO to defer compliance enforcement on the removal or addition privacy/proxy within the Transfer Policy until implementation issues have been resolved”, and resolved to address the Council’s request for “ICANN to work with the Registrar Stakeholder Group and other interested parties to evaluate potential alternatives to the implementation concerns” (i.e. relating to privacy/proxy services and the 60-day lock) at a subsequent meeting. For the full resolution and rationale, see https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2017-02-03-en#1.h The Board also adopted its Scorecard response to the GAC’s Hyderabad Communique, which as you’ll recall included advice on new gTLDs, 2-letter country and territory codes at the second level, and IGO and Red Cross protections. The Scorecard does not include responses to the specific questions the GAC had appended to its advice, as the Board has directed the ICANN CEO to provide the replies. The Scorecard can be found here: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/resolutions-hyderabad57-gac-adv…. Thanks and cheers Mary

1 0

Community Budget Requests for FY18 - GNSO Council Submission
by James M. Bladel Feb. 8, 2017

Feb. 8, 2017

Councilors - As discussed during our 19 JAN call, please find attached two FY18 Budget Request submissions on behalf of the GNSO Council. The first is to allocate travel support funds for chairs of PDP working groups to attend ICANN meetings who might not otherwise be able. This is aligned with the GNSO's desire to make & keep support for policy development work a priority in the budget. The second provides for a GNSO Council Strategic Planning session, outside of the full ICANN schedule, for Councilors to meet and set priorities for the upcoming Council year. This pilot would take place in January 2018. Please note these request submissions are coming from the Council, and are not intended to replace or supplement requests that are coming on behalf of your SGs and Cs. Discuss on this thread if you have any questions, edits or objections to these requests. The deadline for submission has been extended, and requests will now be accepted until 10 FEB 2017. Thank you, J. ------------- James Bladel

5 6

Fwd: CCWG-Accountability WG proposal for a Limited Scope of the ATRT3 Review - reminder
by James M. Bladel Feb. 7, 2017

Feb. 7, 2017

Councilors - Please see the message from CCWG Staff, below. Most of the SO-AC chairs (myself included) took this note as informational, and missed the call to action. In a nutshell, the CCWG co-chairs note that the upcoming ATRT3 review team will overlap significantly with the recently completed (Workstream 1) and ongoing work (Workstream 2) of CCWG-ACCT. Like the approach to WHOIS2, they are proposing a reduced scope for this next review to avoid collision/duplication of work. I'd welcome any comments or thoughts you might have on this, and we can add it as a discussion item for our draft agenda for our Council call in February. Thank you, J. ------------- James Bladel _____________________________ From: Bernard Turcotte <turcotte.bernard(a)gmail.com<mailto:turcotte.bernard@gmail.com>> Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 14:41 Subject: CCWG-Accountability WG proposal for a Limited Scope of the ATRT3 Review - reminder SO and AC Chairs, This is a reminder that the CCWG-Accountability has not received any replies to its December 2nd proposal (original message below) regarding the scope of the upcoming ATRT3 review which will be publishing its call for volunteers by the end of January. As stated in the proposal there are a number of significant overlaps between the work of the CCWG-Accountability and a standard ATRT review which would cause an important duplication of work between these two processes. The CCWG-Accountability simply wishes to ensure that the SO's and AC's are aware that if there is no request from the SO's and AC's to modify the scope of the ATRT3 review prior to its launch that it will proceed as a standard review. The Co-Chairs of the CCWG-Accountability remain available to the SO's and AC's for further discussions or answer any questions. Bernard Turcotte ICANN Staff Support to the CCWG-Accountability for The Co-Chairs of the CCWG-Accountability. On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 5:07 AM, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr<mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>> wrote: Dear SO & AC Chairs, The CCWG-Accountability (CCWG) at its face to face meeting at the ICANN 56 in Helsinki considered the implications of the collision of topics, and therefore efforts, between ATRT3 and Work Stream 2 (WS2) (please see Annex 1 for a detailed consideration of this issue). In its discussion of this issue the CCWG considered the following points: • Collision of topics between WS2 and ATRT3 - There is potential for significant overlap between WS2 topics and the scope of ATRT3 as 6 of the 9 WS2 topics are accountability and transparency issues ATRT3 could also consider. • Timing of the two activities - WS2 began in July 2016 with an objective of completing its work by the end of 2017. ATRT3, which is expected to take 12 months to complete, is currently scheduled to begin in January 2017 but could potentially be delayed until February 2018 under the new Bylaws (which require ATRT every 5 years versus the AoC requirement for every 3 years). It would seem inefficient, at best, to have both of these activities working on the same topics independently, while drawing on the same pool of community volunteers. At worst, ATRT3 and WS2 groups could issue recommendations that are conflicting or duplicative. • Implementation of recommendations – The Bylaws for WS2 give CCWG recommendations greater weight when it comes to board consideration, relative to recommendations from an ATRT organized under the AoC. While in Helsinki, the CCWG concluded its preferred approach, as communicated in our 8-Aug-2016letter<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sanchez-et-al-to-icann…> to the Board of ICANN: Convene ATRT3 as soon as possible with the limited scope of assessing implementation of ATRT2 recommendations. Allow WS2 to handle new recommendations for accountability and transparency. The fourth ATRT would convene before 2022 and would assess all accountability and transparency topics and make recommendations The ICANN Board replied<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/crocker-to-sanchez-et-…> to the CCWG letter on 24-Oct-2016, saying, It is not up to the Board to dictate the scope of this important community review. While we share the concerns raised of avoiding duplication of resources, it is essential that the broader ICANN community have a voice in determining how the ATRT3 should be scoped in alignment with the Bylaws. The Board and the ICANN Organization stand ready to support the community’s direction. Accordingly, the CCWG is now proposing to community leadership the following approach: • Requesting that the SO/AC leadership select (following the new Bylaws) a small group of review team members that have either participated in or closely tracked ATRT2. • Requesting the ICANN organization to do a "self-assessment" reporting on a) the extent to which each recommendation was followed and/or implemented; b) the effectiveness in addressing the issues identified by ATRT2; and c) the need for additional implementation. • Specifically request that the Review Team exclude the issues that are already covered by the CCWG-Accountability WS2 (see Annex 1). • Suggesting that the work be conducted & completed more quickly than normal, such as asking that the Final Report be issued within six months If the suggested approach above is agreeable to SO/AC community, the next steps would be: • SO/AC leadership to issue a public statement or a letter to ICANN CEO and Board Chair that explains why limited scope is appropriate and articulates that they have broad support of the ICANN community • Call for Volunteers to note limited scope & unique expertise sought • Reach out to previous ATRT Review Team members and encourage them to apply for the narrowly-scoped ATRT3 Review Team • Propose a Charter for the ATRT3 Review Team to adopt that tracks the limited Scope Best regards, Thomas Rickert, Leon Sanchez & Mathieu Weill CCWG-Accountability Co-chairs _______________________________________________ Acct-Staff mailing list Acct-Staff(a)icann.org<mailto:Acct-Staff@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/acct-staff

3 3

Standing Selection Committee
by Susan Kawaguchi Feb. 7, 2017

Feb. 7, 2017

Hello All, Please see the attached draft charter for the proposed Standing Selection Committee. This committee would be composed of councilors to select candidates for review teams and other positions. We will discuss next week at the council meeting. Best regards, Susan

1 0

Update - Applicants for SSR2 and RDS Review Teams
by James M. Bladel Feb. 7, 2017

Feb. 7, 2017

Councilors - The leaders of all SO/ACs will meet tomorrow (7 FEB) to discuss the final roster of SSR2-RT Members. Please note that SO/ACs have submitted the following Members for the SSR2 Review Team: Name Gender SO/AC Nomination Region 1 Jabhera Matogoro M ALAC AF 2 Alain Aina M ccNSO AF 3 Mohamad Amin Hasbini M GAC AP 4 Noorul Ameen M GAC AP 5 Geoff Huston M SSAC AP 6 Ramkrishna Pariyar M ALAC AP 7 James Gannon M GNSO EUR 8 Boban Krsic M ccNSO EUR 9 Emily Taylor F GNSO EUR 10 Žarko Kecić M ccNSO EUR 11 Kerry-Ann Barrett F GAC NA 12 Cathy Handley F RSSAC NA 13 Denise Michel F GNSO NA 14 Don M. Blumenthal M SSAC NA 15 Eric Osterweil M RSSAC NA In addition to this list, the SO/ACs may choose from the following Alternate Candidates to balance diversity of gender, global region, and skills/expertise: Name Gender SO/AC Nomination Region 1 Rao Naveed Bin Rais M GNSO* AP 2 Abdalmonem Galila M ccNSO* AF 3 Paul Wouters M ccNSO* NA 4 Scott McCornick M GNSO* NA 5 Howard Eland M GNSO* NA 6 Alexa Raad F ccNSO* NA 7 Norm Ritchie M GNSO* NA I would welcome any thoughts, comments, or recommendations you would like me to convey in this meeting tomorrow. Furthermore, the Registration Directory Services (RDS) Call for Volunteers closed on 20 January 2017. Below is a list of the applications that have been submitted for your consideration. You can also find the full application for each candidate posted on the RDS-RT Wiki: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=63145857 (Note that one GNSO candidate (Emily Taylor) has tentatively indicated that she may withdraw from consideration of the RDS-RT) Name Region Gender Seeking SO/AC endorsement SO/AC Nomination 1 Bonface Witaba AF M Other 2 Simon Seruyinda AF M Other 3 Michel Odou AF M Other 4 Remmy Nweke AF M GNSO 5 Stephen Kiptinness AF M ccNSO 6 Vignesh Pamu AP M GNSO 7 Ahmed Bakhat Masood AP M Other 8 R.R. Krishnaa AP M ccNSO 9 Rohit Yadav AP M ccNSO 10 Pitinan Kooamornpatana AP F GNSO 11 Ali Hussain AP M Other 12 Lili Sun AP F GAC 13 Subham Charan AP M GNSO 14 Stefania Milan EUR F GNSO 15 Svitlana Tkachenko EUR F ccNSO 16 Geo Van Langenhove EUR M ccNSO 17 Emily Taylor EUR F GNSO 18 Dmitry Belyavsky EUR M ALAC 19 Ayden Férdeline EUR M GNSO 20 Taras Geychenko EUR M ccNSO 21 Cathrin Bauer-Bulst EUR F GAC 22 Dejan Đukić EUR M ccNSO 23 Volker Greimann EUR M GNSO 24 Carlton Samuels LAC M ALAC 25 Timothy Chen NA M Other 26 Marc Anderson NA M GNSO 27 Stephanie Perrin NA F GNSO 28 Susan Kawaguchi NA F GNSO 29 Daniel John NA M ALAC 30 Thomas L. Walden, Jr. NA M GAC Ideally, we would employ our new Standing Selection Process to determine which candidates seeking GNSO endorsement are selected for RDS-RT. Thank you, J.

1 0

MOTION: Confirmation that modifications to the procedure for WHOIS Conflicts with local law...
by James M. Bladel Feb. 6, 2017

Feb. 6, 2017

Council colleagues - Attached and copied below, please find a draft motion for consideration during our next call on 16 FEB 2017. This motion is the third (!) attempt to address the final report of the IAG from May of last year. What's Changed: The new motion differs from previous motions on this topic, in particular, -- The Council resolves to accept that the recommendations are consistent with the WHOIS Conflicts with local law procedure. -- Additionally, the Council resolves to commence another review no later than May 2017, under the "annual review" prescribed by the procedure. I am hopeful that linking acceptance of the IAG's recommendations, along with a commitment to further review of the procedure, will address concerns that have stymied our work on this issue over the past several months. And I look forward to a thorough discussion of this topic/motion on the list and during our next call. Thank you, J. __________ Draft motion – Confirmation that modification to procedure that implements the Whois conflicts with privacy law policy recommendation is consistent with the intent of the policy recommendation Whereas, 1. In November 2005, the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) concluded a policy development process (PDP) on Whois conflicts with privacy law, which recommended the creation of a procedure to address conflicts between a contracted party's Whois obligations and local/national privacy laws or regulations. 2. The ICANN Board of Directors adopted the recommendations in May 2006 and the final procedure was made effective in January 2008. 3. As noted in the GNSO Operating Procedures, “Periodic assessment of PDP recommendations and policies is an important tool to guard against unexpected results or inefficient processes arising from GNSO policies”. As called for in Step 6 of the ICANN Procedure For Handling WHOIS Conflicts with Privacy Law<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/whois-privacy-conflicts-procedure-200…>, “ICANN will review the effectiveness of the process annually”. 4. ICANN launched a review of the procedure in May 2014. Following a Call for Volunteers addressed to all interested parties, an Implementation Advisory Group (IAG) was formed to review the implementation of the policy recommendations and began its work in January 2015. The IAG devoted most of its time discussing whether additional triggers to invoke the procedure should be incorporated and if so how to ensure that they remain consistent with the existing policy. 5. On 26 May 2016, the IAG submitted its final report and recommendation to the GNSO Council. 6. In its final report, the IAG recommends a modification to the existing Whois Conflicts Procedure. The modification would allow a party to trigger the procedure by obtaining a written statement from the government agency charged with enforcing its data privacy laws indicating that a particular Whois obligation conflicts with national law and then submitting that statement to ICANN, in addition to the existing trigger. Resolved, 1. The GNSO Council has reviewed the IAG Final Report (http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/iag-review-whois-conflicts-procedure-23may1…) and concludes that the proposed modification to the procedure conforms to the intent of the original policy recommendations and as such the GNSO Council confirms its non-objection to the modification being implemented by Global Domains Division Staff as outlined in Appendix I (http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/iag-review-whois-conflicts-procedure-append…) as soon as practically feasible. 2. The GNSO Council recommends that as soon as the modification has been implemented all affected parties are informed accordingly. 3. Furthermore, the GNSO Council requests that ICANN staff, based on their experience of administering the modification, assess the practicality and feasibility of this new triggerin comparison to the existing trigger as well as the other triggers discussed in the IAG Final Report and reports back accordingly to the GNSO Council. 4. This assessment will inform the next periodic review of the effectiveness of the process, as directed by the policy, which will commence no later than 31 May 2017. The GNSO requests ICANN staff to report within 45 days on a projected timeline for this review and the assessment described in (3), and a draft charter for this working group. 5. The GNSO Council thanks the IAG for its work and takes note of the minority views included in the Final Report. The GNSO Council requests that these are shared with the Next-Generation Registration Directory Services PDP Working Group as the broader WHOIS issues raised in these views are expected to be dealt with in that PDP. ________________________________

1 0

Thick WHOIS Registration Data Directory Services Requirements to Take Effect
by Steve Chan Feb. 3, 2017

Feb. 3, 2017

Dear Councilors, FYI, the Thick WHOIS registration data directory services requirements were published on 1 February 2017. Please see the announcement below. Best, Steve From: ICANN News Alert <no-reply(a)external.icann.org> Reply-To: "no-reply(a)external.icann.org" <no-reply(a)external.icann.org> Date: Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 1:28 PM To: Steve Chan <steve.chan(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] ICANN News Alert -- Thick WHOIS Registration Data Directory Services Requirements to Take Effect [icann.org] News Alert https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2017-02-01-en[icann.org] Thick WHOIS Registration Data Directory Services Requirements to Take Effect 1 February 2017 LOS ANGELES – 1 February 2017 – The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) today announced that all ICANN gTLD contracted parties must update their registration data directory services to comply with the Thick Whois Transition Policy for .COM, .NET and .JOBS[icann.org] and Registry Registration Data Directory Services Consistent Labeling and Display Policy[icann.org]. The policies require all gTLD registrations to be Thick with a consistent labeling and display of WHOIS output. gTLD registry operators currently providing Thin WHOIS services – .COM, .NET and .JOBS – must submit all new domain name registrations as Thick WHOIS by 1 May 2018. These registries must also migrate all data required for Thick WHOIS services for existing domain names by 1 February 2019. These changes are required by the Thick Whois Transition Policy for .COM, .NET and .JOBS. In addition, registries and registrars are required to implement the data specifications defined in the Registry Registration Data Directory Services Consistent Labeling and Display Policy by 1 August 2017. ICANN has notified contracted parties of their new responsibilities. Background: ICANN's agreements[icann.org] with accredited registrars and with gTLD registry operators require compliance with various specifically stated procedures and "consensus policies." Consensus policies are developed through a bottom-up, multistakeholder policy development process in accordance with ICANN Bylaws. The ICANN Board adopted GNSO consensus policy recommendations[icann.org] regarding the use of Thick WHOIS by all gTLD registries on 7 February 2014. The recommendations state that, "The provision of Thick Whois services, with a consistent labeling and display as per the model outlined in specification 3 of the 2013 [Registrar Accreditation Agreement], should become a requirement for all gTLD registries, both existing and future." Learn more: GNSO Thick Whois Policy Development Process[gnso.icann.org] Policy Implementation at ICANN[icann.org] About ICANN ICANN's mission is to help ensure a stable, secure and unified global Internet. To reach another person on the Internet, you have to type an address into your computer - a name or a number. That address has to be unique so computers know where to find each other. ICANN helps coordinate and support these unique identifiers across the world. ICANN was formed in 1998 as a not-for-profit public-benefit corporation and a community with participants from all over the world. ICANN and its community help keep the Internet secure, stable and interoperable. It also promotes competition and develops policy for the top-level of the Internet's naming system and facilitates the use of other unique Internet identifiers. For more information please visit: www.icann.org[icann.org]. This message was sent to steve.chan(a)icann.org from:ICANN News Alert | no-reply(a)external.icann.org | ICANN | 12025 Waterfront Drive Suite 300 | Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536Email Marketing by [icontact.com] Manage Your Subscription [app.icontact.com]

1 0

Reminder: Document and Motion deadline Monday, 6 February 2017 at 23:59 UTC for the GNSO Council Meeting 16 February 2017 at 12:00 UTC
by Nathalie Peregrine Feb. 2, 2017

Feb. 2, 2017

Dear Councilors, Reports, motions and documents for consideration are due no later than (NLT) 10 days in advance (i.e. MONDAY, 6 February 2017 at 23:59 UTC) of the GNSO Council Meeting on 16 February 2017 at 12:00 UTC. Motions should be sent to the Council mailing list and will then be posted on the Wiki at: https://community.icann.org/x/PI7RAw<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> Thank you very much. Kind regards, Nathalie -- Nathalie Peregrine Specialist, SOAC Support (GNSO) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: nathalie.peregrine(a)icann.org <nathalie.peregrine(a)icann.org%20> Skype: nathalie.peregrine.icann Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<learn.icann.org/courses/gnso> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gn…>

1 0